Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does disclose that the query is discarded, which is a useful side-effect warning. However, it does not clarify that all other parameters are likely ignored or that no other I/O occurs, leaving the behavioral contract incomplete given no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences, no redundant fluff, and the key action is front-loaded. Every word contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not specify the return value, how characters are counted (e.g., code points vs. UTF-16 units), what happens when query is omitted, or that non-query parameters are irrelevant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description adds no extra meaning about how the many additional parameters relate to the tool, and some schema descriptions (e.g., URL normalize/cite) seem unrelated to character counting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action: counting characters in a search query. It is distinct from sibling tools like memory-key-count or think-steps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need the character length of a search query), but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.